Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012 really was impressive

The storm helped break up sea ice, causing a new record low.

This summer saw a new record low in the ice covering the Arctic Ocean, with levels bottoming out well below those seen in 2007, the previous low year. A major contributor to that drop was an unusual summer cyclone, which parked over the pole for several days in the course of its nearly two-week long existence. Researchers from Australia have now run the numbers on the storm, and found that it really does deserve the moniker "great Arctic cyclone." But they also conclude that the storm wasn't fueled by the unusually open ocean beneath it.

The storm was hard to miss in satellite imagery such as the example shown above, but its full history wasn't necessarily obvious. So, the authors of the new study downloaded atmospheric data and plugged it into an atmospheric model that specializes in identifying cyclonic systems. They were able to detect the first indication of the storm over Siberia on the 2nd of August. But it really got going once it entered the Arctic basin on the 4th; by the 6th, the eye of the storm had reached its lowest pressure. The very next day, it took a slight detour and hovered over the Pole for several days before heading south over Canada and finally dissipating on the 14th.

A notable thing about the storm is that it did not seem to involve a large redistribution of atmospheric heat content. Storms like hurricanes famously take the energy from warm surface waters and redistribute it to the atmosphere. But readings from the Arctic Cyclone showed that the heat flux was small for most of its history. This suggests that the storm wasn't powered by the ocean below it, which in turn indicates that the loss of ice wasn't a factor in driving the storm's unusual strength. As the authors put it, "This leads to the view that it was the enhanced influence of the cyclone which contributed to the reduction in ice area, rather than low sea ice area being responsible for releasing energy to maintain the system."

One potential influence on the storm that came out of the analysis was a link to a vortex at the lower boundary of the stratosphere. A tropopause polar vortex had developed a few weeks earlier and had spent time north of Europe before heading east. By the 6th of August, the vortex was near the center of the storm. The two remained associated from that point onward.

How unusual was the 2012 storm? The authors pulled up records of 1,618 Arctic cyclones that struck during August, dating back to 1979. By one measure, the 2012 storm is the strongest on record: it reached the lowest pressure at the center of the storm. But, when you include other cyclonic properties such as size and duration, the storm dropped to third on the overall list.

Arctic cyclones tend to be more common and severe in winter months, so the authors expanded their analysis to include over 19,500 storms that have struck at any time of the year. In this list, the 2012 storm ranked 13th. As far as they're concerned, the storm earned the title Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012.

Climate change is thought to strengthen storms that move over the ocean because it warms the ocean waters, providing the storms with more heat and moisture. Since that doesn't appear to have been the case here, the existence of an extreme storm appears to have been a fluke weather event. Its impact on the ice, however, was shaped by climate, which had left the August ice very thin. As a NASA staff member said when the storm was first spotted, “Decades ago, a storm of the same magnitude would have been less likely to have as large an impact on the sea ice, because at that time the ice cover was thicker and more expansive.”

43 Reader Comments

"This leads to the view that it was the enhanced influence of the cyclone which contributed to the reduction in ice area, rather than low sea ice area being responsible for releasing energy to maintain the system."

This is the important part... a lot of folks jumped on the "record low sea ice" and started the "global warming" drumbeat, but the record low sea ice from that time was due to the huge storm breaking up the ice.

That's also part of the reason the ice gained area and volume so fast after the summer "warm" season - there was a lot of cold air and water ready to freeze everything over again.

"This leads to the view that it was the enhanced influence of the cyclone which contributed to the reduction in ice area, rather than low sea ice area being responsible for releasing energy to maintain the system."

This is the important part... a lot of folks jumped on the "record low sea ice" and started the "global warming" drumbeat, but the record low sea ice from that time was due to the huge storm breaking up the ice.

That's also part of the reason the ice gained area and volume so fast after the summer "warm" season - there was a lot of cold air and water ready to freeze everything over again.

"the existence of an extreme storm appears to have been a fluke weather event. Its impact on the ice, however, was shaped by climate, which had left the August ice very thin. As a NASA staff member said when the storm was first spotted, “Decades ago, a storm of the same magnitude would have been less likely to have as large an impact on the sea ice, because at that time the ice cover was thicker and more expansive.”

"This leads to the view that it was the enhanced influence of the cyclone which contributed to the reduction in ice area, rather than low sea ice area being responsible for releasing energy to maintain the system."

This is the important part... a lot of folks jumped on the "record low sea ice" and started the "global warming" drumbeat, but the record low sea ice from that time was due to the huge storm breaking up the ice.

except the sea ice levels were already really low, even relative to the usual terrible state of Arctic sea ice. it just made a bad situation worse.

This is the important part... a lot of folks jumped on the "record low sea ice" and started the "global warming" drumbeat, but the record low sea ice from that time was due to the huge storm breaking up the ice..

I swear I had this talking point in my Complete List of Denialist Talking Points (TM), but I can't find it now.

I added it after the last time unusual winds happened and the usual suspects found that crumb and declared it a picnic.

Great article - I love this topic. I enjoy tracking storms every time they come through my area, and I always follow the big US weather events.

In this part of the California coast the climate is very mild, and the Pacific cyclones never come here. I wonder if that is going to change as the water continues to warm?

Also as noted these big Arctic storms can contribute to ice loss, which adds to the warming feedback loop.

Edit: By Pacific cyclones, I mean the tropical ones, which never seem to threaten the populated areas of California. (We do get plenty of earthquakes, though.)

It probably won't change much. California doesn't get cyclones for the same reason that Europe doesn't really get them: cold water offshore and prevailing winds that force storms toward asia (the same way hurricanes in the atlantic start off of Africa and head to the east side of north america).

Great article - I love this topic. I enjoy tracking storms every time they come through my area, and I always follow the big US weather events.

In this part of the California coast the climate is very mild, and the Pacific cyclones never come here. I wonder if that is going to change as the water continues to warm?

Also as noted these big Arctic storms can contribute to ice loss, which adds to the warming feedback loop.

Edit: By Pacific cyclones, I mean the tropical ones, which never seem to threaten the populated areas of California. (We do get plenty of earthquakes, though.)

It probably won't change much. California doesn't get cyclones for the same reason that Europe doesn't really get them: cold water offshore and prevailing winds that force storms toward asia (the same way hurricanes in the atlantic start off of Africa and head to the east side of north america).

On the other hand, it's possible that warming could increase the water content of "atmospheric rivers," some of which regularly hit California and dump tons of rain in a short span of time. Californians are most familiar with them in the form of those "pineapple express" storms that hit the state from all the way over in Hawaii. Especially strong events of this type are responsible for the almost-periodic mega-flooding events that seem to happen every 150-200 years, the last being the Great Flood of 1862 that bankrupted California.

This also coincided with altered stream courses from gold mining, and forced Sacramento to limit how many hillsides could be cut down for gold. Nevertheless, I remember one March Miracle in the 1990s that kept me from leaving the Sacto Valley to go south, as every pass out of the valley was closed for 3 days...

"This leads to the view that it was the enhanced influence of the cyclone which contributed to the reduction in ice area, rather than low sea ice area being responsible for releasing energy to maintain the system."

This is the important part... a lot of folks jumped on the "record low sea ice" and started the "global warming" drumbeat, but the record low sea ice from that time was due to the huge storm breaking up the ice.

That's also part of the reason the ice gained area and volume so fast after the summer "warm" season - there was a lot of cold air and water ready to freeze everything over again.

Except of course this is totally bad reasoning if you consider that the reason there would be more of these storms is warming in the first place. In other words this is just the MECHANISM of (some) ice loss. Saying its all OK because we know the mechanism is like saying forest fires are all OK because we now know it is fire that actually does the burning, like that matters one bit...

Fluke used to describe the Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012 seems to be the wrong label here... 1,618 Arctic cyclones (which would suggest cyclones alone, not just Arctic storms) that struck in August since 1979, and 19,500 overall in the same time period of which it only ranks 13th, albeit 1st/3rd depending on the parameters used for August cyclones.

A fluke to me should denote something with numbers far outside the norm.

"This leads to the view that it was the enhanced influence of the cyclone which contributed to the reduction in ice area, rather than low sea ice area being responsible for releasing energy to maintain the system."

This is the important part... a lot of folks jumped on the "record low sea ice" and started the "global warming" drumbeat, but the record low sea ice from that time was due to the huge storm breaking up the ice.

That's also part of the reason the ice gained area and volume so fast after the summer "warm" season - there was a lot of cold air and water ready to freeze everything over again.

No, that's not correct. The sea ice was already on track to be 4 to 5 standard deviations below the 30-year average before the storm showed up. It would have been a record-low sea ice year even without the storm, as you can see in this graphic:http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charc ... ice-graph/

Without the storm, it might not have broken the 2007 record, but it was obviously going to come close.

The temperature of America will rose to 300 degree Fahrenheit. The whole nation covered up with sand dooms. Nothing there grow anymore. I couldn't imagine what Mexico would be like, and never mind anything south of it.

The temperature of America will rose to 300 degree Fahrenheit. The whole nation covered up with sand dooms. Nothing there grow anymore. I couldn't imagine what Mexico would be like, and never mind anything south of it.

Gwynne Dyer talks about the hush contingency plans that various military organizations around the world are hatching for our not-so-distant future in this video: The Geopolitics of Climate Change. More specifically, he mentions that the US / México border will eventually have to be closed and this, in a relatively short horizon of less than 15 years from now. Crazy, isn't it ?

It's an hour-long conference sprinkled with "interesting" thought-provoking snippets but if you happen to make it through to the question period at the end of his presentation, you will hear good answers given in response to no less good questions raised by americans in the hall about denialism and stuff.

]Ice free arctic ocean will lead to cheaper oil and natural gas. It is a win-win situation for all.

Win-win for a few all. Not most all who will be affected by continuing rising temps and changing wx patterns.

That is: the rich all who will profit. Not the most all who will suffer.

Best,

D

A warmer planet means longer growing seasons (more food) and more land for us to live on and utilize. Land which is currently frozen would open up. The Vikings farmed land which is now frozen after all... A warmer planet is better for the human species than a colder one.

"This leads to the view that it was the enhanced influence of the cyclone which contributed to the reduction in ice area, rather than low sea ice area being responsible for releasing energy to maintain the system."

This is the important part... a lot of folks jumped on the "record low sea ice" and started the "global warming" drumbeat, but the record low sea ice from that time was due to the huge storm breaking up the ice.

That's also part of the reason the ice gained area and volume so fast after the summer "warm" season - there was a lot of cold air and water ready to freeze everything over again.

"the existence of an extreme storm appears to have been a fluke weather event. Its impact on the ice, however, was shaped by climate, which had left the August ice very thin. As a NASA staff member said when the storm was first spotted, “Decades ago, a storm of the same magnitude would have been less likely to have as large an impact on the sea ice, because at that time the ice cover was thicker and more expansive.”

Do at least a little research. There is no increase in large storms. In fact hurricanes and such storms are on the decline not rise.

The scientific reality is that on virtually every claim the claims of the promoters of man-made climate fears are failing. The claims of man-made climate promoters have continued to fail on every issue from sea levels to polar bears to global temperatures to Mt. Kilimanjaro to extreme weather claims to hurricanes to tornadoes to Antarctic ice. The failure has been so complete that global warming activists and many in the media are now forced to point to ANY bad weather event as somehow “proof” of man-made global warming.

All of these things have both negative and positive effects, just look for that silver lining.You might at well, since it's going to happen one way or another.

"sure cancer's bad, but just think of how much weight you'll be losing!"

What appears to be a rise in cancer could simply be a consequence of our extended lifespans. We are living longer today than at any other point in recorded history. Cancer could simply be a natural result of the aging process for many people. Cancer in general does tend to be an older person's disease. Try to remember that our bodies are designed to fall apart as we get older. Our body chemistry changes as we get older which is why allergies vanish and others may pop up as we get older. People like to blame our current way of life for these things even though we have our current way of life to thank for our extended lives and so many diseases which used to claim large portions of the human population being eradicated or illnesses we can live with. The 'good old days' weren't all that good. We are living far better lives health-wise than we ever have.

A warmer planet means longer growing seasons (more food) and more land for us to live on and utilize. Land which is currently frozen would open up. The Vikings farmed land which is now frozen after all... A warmer planet is better for the human species than a colder one.

No it won't but thanks for recycling those arguments.

They have been recycled so many times and refuted so many times that they are standardized, numbered, and points are assigned to them for those who like to keep score.

A warmer planet means longer growing seasons (more food) and more land for us to live on and utilize. Land which is currently frozen would open up. The Vikings farmed land which is now frozen after all... A warmer planet is better for the human species than a colder one.

When every nations on this planet guaranteed an 80 degree climate it would be not only nice, it is great. Since mother nature doesn't work that way so when one gets an 80 degree as for the others they must be suffering at 200 degree or may be at a much higher temperature. But you already knew that, right?

But then, on the other hand, when one suffering a sub-zero temperature as they are now, the others live a comfortable 70 degree all year around. So it is not a fairness situation for all on this planet.